By what means do people create antinomies to the truth according to the authors of this reading? (Read chapter 1)
People may not always like the truth and try to avoid it through several means, which are the antimonies people create to avoid the truth. The first antimony, is the most simplest one: saying no. Saying no and denying the 'truth' that you do not wish to believe in is the simplest antimony, however, the second antimony which is attacking the truth through asking rival questions and unanswerable questions is more difficult and often results in conflict, and people will be able to 'shut you down' by tying the truth to a strong belief such as religion or culture. Obfuscation, which is to confuse the truth teller is the last antimony created to avoid the truth in which people will intentionally confuse the truth-teller.
What are the points that the authors are making in this chapter? do you agree?
There are several points that the author made that I have to agree with: · Authority relieves people of responsibility and the labour of thinking - I’ll have no choice but to succumb to the authority, as that I don't want to risk my life, therefore I'll have to believe in this 'truth' and not question it. · Ideas should be free to attack - I'm only attacking this idea, and not the person who have come up with the idea, but there could be implications while attacking the idea aggressively, that the creator of the truth isn't competent. · Linking an idea to a popular religion or cultural belief definitely 'shuts people up' - If I attack this idea, I'll be attacking a belief, a belief upheld by many people around and I wouldn't want to offend thousands of people · People are happier believing deity, so it's evil to say there's no deity - linked to the religion, if people are so content believing in something, why should I come along and take their content away from them, furthermore the numbers only strengthens the belief in deity. · Caring and truth are tied in - If I don't care, then I wouldn't want to know about the truth, and if I did know about the truth I wouldn't question it or be offended by it if I didn’t care.
Revisited - What point are the authors making in this reading? Do you agree? Explain why or why not .
The main point that the authors are trying to make in this reading is to prepare the reader for what is to come in the rest the book, which is the discussion on various and related forms of skepticism and relativism about turth, and the possibility of knowledge. The authors tell the readers what truth skepticism and doubt of reality is common, and that it is this truth skepticism which allows such skeptics to easily distort the shape the 'truth' to favour particular viewpoints. I feel that, it isn't just the truth skeptics that can easily distort the truth, anyone with any knowledge of a certain truth holds a certain power over other people, they can easily manipulate this truth to their favour, or they can hold it against them and even use as blackmail.
The authors then tell the readers that such 'truth skepticism' has come up recently in various branches of humanity and social science, which is what enticed the authors to write this book. I can truly understand the authors' reasons to respect truth, and that is, we as far we know are the only ones able to 'fudge up' and manipulate these truths, why emphasizes the importance of this knowledge, which we should respect (because the truth can be so easily manipulated, the real truth is almost a rarity, like rare metals and elements we have to preserve and respect). I also strongly agree with what is mentioned in the last paragraph, where the authors describes that 'We humans live for such a short time, but the truth lives forever, which is why it's in no ones right to distort or destroy the truth', as grand as such a philosophy sounds, I know that it can never be achieved (There's a bigger picture to everything a person or even a whole community's unethical desires to manipulate the truth is miniscule compared to the rest of the world and the future generations)
Another line which I agree with is that the truth matters because it's not always something irrefutable, it's not always definite like the proof for a maths equation, but sometimes it's more intangible reasons, which reflects to the PERL diagram, particularly the 'emotion' section. Nice work David. Well written and explained.
Why Truth Matters: The antinomies of Truth
By what means do people create antinomies to the truth according to the authors of this reading? (Read chapter 1)
People may not always like the truth and try to avoid it through several means, which are the antimonies people create to avoid the truth. The first antimony, is the most simplest one: saying no. Saying no and denying the 'truth' that you do not wish to believe in is the simplest antimony, however, the second antimony which is attacking the truth through asking rival questions and unanswerable questions is more difficult and often results in conflict, and people will be able to 'shut you down' by tying the truth to a strong belief such as religion or culture. Obfuscation, which is to confuse the truth teller is the last antimony created to avoid the truth in which people will intentionally confuse the truth-teller.
What are the points that the authors are making in this chapter? do you agree?
There are several points that the author made that I have to agree with:
· Authority relieves people of responsibility and the labour of thinking - I’ll have no choice but to succumb to the authority, as that I don't want to risk my life, therefore I'll have to believe in this 'truth' and not question it.
· Ideas should be free to attack - I'm only attacking this idea, and not the person who have come up with the idea, but there could be implications while attacking the idea aggressively, that the creator of the truth isn't competent.
· Linking an idea to a popular religion or cultural belief definitely 'shuts people up' - If I attack this idea, I'll be attacking a belief, a belief upheld by many people around and I wouldn't want to offend thousands of people
· People are happier believing deity, so it's evil to say there's no deity - linked to the religion, if people are so content believing in something, why should I come along and take their content away from them, furthermore the numbers only strengthens the belief in deity.
· Caring and truth are tied in - If I don't care, then I wouldn't want to know about the truth, and if I did know about the truth I wouldn't question it or be offended by it if I didn’t care.
Revisited - What point are the authors making in this reading? Do you agree? Explain why or why not .
The main point that the authors are trying to make in this reading is to prepare the reader for what is to come in the rest the book, which is the discussion on various and related forms of skepticism and relativism about turth, and the possibility of knowledge. The authors tell the readers what truth skepticism and doubt of reality is common, and that it is this truth skepticism which allows such skeptics to easily distort the shape the 'truth' to favour particular viewpoints. I feel that, it isn't just the truth skeptics that can easily distort the truth, anyone with any knowledge of a certain truth holds a certain power over other people, they can easily manipulate this truth to their favour, or they can hold it against them and even use as blackmail.
The authors then tell the readers that such 'truth skepticism' has come up recently in various branches of humanity and social science, which is what enticed the authors to write this book. I can truly understand the authors' reasons to respect truth, and that is, we as far we know are the only ones able to 'fudge up' and manipulate these truths, why emphasizes the importance of this knowledge, which we should respect (because the truth can be so easily manipulated, the real truth is almost a rarity, like rare metals and elements we have to preserve and respect). I also strongly agree with what is mentioned in the last paragraph, where the authors describes that 'We humans live for such a short time, but the truth lives forever, which is why it's in no ones right to distort or destroy the truth', as grand as such a philosophy sounds, I know that it can never be achieved (There's a bigger picture to everything a person or even a whole community's unethical desires to manipulate the truth is miniscule compared to the rest of the world and the future generations)
Another line which I agree with is that the truth matters because it's not always something irrefutable, it's not always definite like the proof for a maths equation, but sometimes it's more intangible reasons, which reflects to the PERL diagram, particularly the 'emotion' section.
Nice work David. Well written and explained.